Equality under the law surely is an American value. Who, if they had the facts, would support a law that results in subjugation? Perhaps the oppressor might vote for such a law, but not those who are disadvantaged by the law. Yet, in the United States, women have not yet had the political will to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Its language is simple.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

It outlaws sexism.

And yet, the amendment is still not part of the United States Constitution.

Women are governed by a set of laws that have evolved over time, which stem from issues around human reproduction. The sexual organ difference between men and women has led to two sets of laws and rights.

The megablogs, such as Daily Kos, Boomantribune, and mydd, are advancing an argument that the issue of women's reproductive rights is not important, and that if a Democrat wants to restrict a woman's rights, that is okay since women's reproductive rights are not as important as electing a certain slate of candidates.

If I chose to support another candidate, who supports women's reproductive rights, but who is not of the "correct" slate of candidates, I risk being accused of being a traitor and deserter of the cause. But what cause, pray tell?

Why would I care about a candidate who doesn't care about me? It's as simple as that and the machinations of megablogs like Daily Kos, Boomantribune, and mydd, come off as flummery - I am urged to vote against my own interests because it is in my interests. Huh?

The Democrats, of late, have abandoned women's rights as an issue as the Democrats swing ever rightward. I ask myself, why should I join this made race to nowhere, whose only promise is oblivion? Either way, the Democrats will lose. The megblogs tell us there will be few Democrats in power; fewer Democratic bodies in Congress. But that's one price I am not going to pay, no matter how many elections it might win, for in the end, the Democrats will have struck a bargain to win an election, only to find out that they have sold their souls.

South Dakota has now passed legislation making it illegal for a woman to have an abortion even in the case of rape or incest. It's a law perfectly timed to test the new Supreme Court now that Samuel Alito has joined their ranks. How exactly did we get to this place?

Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

They sat back, bilked their membership like an ATM then didn't show up to fight Alito's confirmation, frolicking in their mountain of hoarded cash even as they pissed and moaned. Worse yet, afterwards they told their members to thank those in the Senate -- like Joe Lieberman -- who cast their votes to let this happen.

Here's the problem with this logic: NARAL did not have a vote on that floor. Neither did Planned Parenthood.

For the better part of a year now, big sport has been made by A-list bloggers to kick NARAL and blame them for everything from John Kerry's election loss to, now, Alito's confirmation. When Kos does it, you can see the crocodile tears. After all, seeing a man who avidly endorses forced-pregnancy candidates actually whine and complain about NARAL's political tactics regarding reproductive rights is like listening to a deer hunter complaining about the WWF's ineffectiveness at protecting wild game.

But I really don't get the A-listers' front-page attacks on NARAL, an organization of limited effectiveness and little political clout.

Jane Hamsher gets this much right:

The conventional wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the Democratic party will be just fine if it shifts dramatically to the right and "goes with the flow." NARAL was birthed by pioneering feminists like Betty Friedan who had fire in their bellies, but somewhere along the line they became an institutional behemoth who wanted to court the rich and the powerful more than they wanted to actually serve the cause that so many hard working Americans entrust them to do -- guard choice.

They began endorsing Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and giving money to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Yet when the Alito cloture vote went down -- the only meaningful vote, which could've been stopped with 40 "nay" votes from getting to the floor -- all of these people voted "aye." People like Chafee and Joe Lieberman later voted "nay" in the final vote which only required a simple majority of 51. They then ran around and huffing and puffing about this coathanger-wielding like they'd done something really brave on behalf of choice. Nobody was fooled.

Well, nobody but Planned Parenthood....

...

...And nobody but NARAL, who said "Thank your senator for opposing Alito!" and then listed a whole slew of Senators who hadn't supported them on cloture.

But to claim that "NARAL and Planned Parenthood Are Now the Enemies of Pro-Choice"? At worst, they're guilty of bad judgment and political ineffectiveness.

The enemies are the politicians who cast the deciding votes. The enemies are the activists who try to marginalize women's control over their own bodies as a "pet cause." The enemies are the political bloggers who push candidates like Casey in PA in primaries and attack (using Republican talking points) those who don't agree with them.

Kicking NARAL may offer some short-term satisfaction, and stir up some controversy. But it won't accomplish much of anything. The problems are the politicians -- the so-called "pro-choice" Republicans who have yet to vote to protect equal rights, and the so-called Democrats who seem to love voting with the Republicans.

"Pro-choice" doesn't count if they don't vote it.

"Democrat" doesn't count if they don't vote it.

That's where the problem is. And at this point, NARAL is at worst simply irrelevant.

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.

"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.The innocent lives of pregnant women are not to be considered, she didn't add but clearly meant.

Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life."Of course, to these folks, women's lives don't actually count as "life." They find more value in potential humans than living and breathing humans. Such is the "culture of life." Ironic, isn't it?

High Court to Address 'Partial-Birth' Abortions
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court today set the stage for a major ruling on abortion by agreeing to decide whether Congress can outlaw so-called "partial birth" abortions during the mid-term of a pregnancy.

The case, to be heard in the fall, will test whether lawmakers can strictly regulate how abortions are performed.

[cnn]

Some doctors say this surgical procedure, which they call an intact dilation and evacuation, is the safest method of ending a pregnancy because it reduces the risk of bleeding and infection. But Republican lawmakers describe it as gruesome and inhumane, and they want to make it a crime, even for otherwise legal abortions.

Six years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a similar state law banning such abortions and ruled by a 5-4 margin that it was unconstitutional to endanger a woman's health in the process of regulating abortion.

In recent months, three U.S. appeals courts voiced the same view in striking down the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which Congress passed in 2003.

But the justices said today they will hear the Bush administration's appeal.

It argues that the judges should rely on Congress's view of the medical risks of mid-term abortions, not the court testimony of medical experts.

And Congress announced this surgical method of removing an intact fetus was "never medically indicated," despite the views of the doctors involved.

And don't miss the crux of the deal, and deal it is, as a supposedly modern (but we're not) science-based (but we're not) country sells out a majority group, women, to religion and politics. And make that BOTH Republicans and Democrats. Little difference in the desire for power.

While the doctors focused on the safety of their patients, Republican lawmakers said they were focused on the effect on the fetus.

They said this abortion procedure is inhumane because the doctor punctures and compresses the skull of the tiny fetus as it removed from the woman.

As election season heats up, and the things that really matter to the nation, like say, the war in Iraq and government secrecy and Republican Congressional scandals, start to drive the polls over to the Democratic side, we can all look forward to hearing Bill O'Reilly spitting mad over contraception parental notification, Sean Hannity screeching like a monkey with its nuts in a vice over gay marriage, and Rush Limbaugh ironically blowing out farts over broadcast decency. Man, the Rude Pundit can't wait to get to prayin'.

On my fourth morning, with the bleeding and cramping increasing, I couldnâ€™t wait any more. I called my doctor and was told that since I wasnâ€™t hemorrhaging, I should not come in. Her partner, on call, pedantically explained that women can safely lose a lot of blood, even during a routine period.

I began calling labor and delivery units at the top five medical centers in my area. I told them I had been 19 weeks along. The baby is dead. Iâ€™m bleeding, I said. Iâ€™m scheduled for a D&E in a few days. If I come in right now, what could you do for me, I asked.

Donâ€™t come in, they told me again and again. â€œGo to your emergency room if you are hemorrhaging to avoid bleeding to death. No one here can do a D&E today, and unless youâ€™re really in active labor youâ€™re safer to wait.â€? [...]

At last I found one university teaching hospital that, at least over the telephone, was willing to take me.

â€œWe do have one doctor who can do a D&E,â€? they said. â€œCome in to our emergency room if you want.â€?

But when I arrived at the universityâ€™s emergency room, the source of the tension was clear. After examining me and confirming I was bleeding but not hemorrhaging, the attending obstetrician, obviously pregnant herself, defensively explained that only one of their dozens of obstetricians and gynecologists still does D&Es, and he was simply not available.

Not today. Not tomorrow. Not the next day.

No, I couldnâ€™t have his name. She walked away from me and called my doctor.

â€œYou canâ€™t just dump these patients on us,â€? she shouted into the phone, her high-pitched voice floating through the heavy curtains surrounding my bed. â€œYou should be dealing with this yourself.â€?